COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
)
ANDRE JOHNSON, ) No. 08-04-00206-CR
)
Appellant, ) Appeal from
)
v. ) 228th District Court
)
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) of Harris County, Texas
)
Appellee. ) (TC# 965337)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The memorandum opinion issued on February 10, 2005 is withdrawn and the following is the memorandum opinion of this court.
Andre Johnson appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant waived his right to trial by jury and pled guilty without an agreed recommendation. He also pled true to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him at imprisonment for a term of twenty years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377, 87 S. Ct. 2094 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has been filed. The record reflects that Appellant was admonished of the consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and Appellant made a judicial confession admitting his guilt. Based upon the record before us, the guilty plea appears to have been freely and voluntarily made by Appellant.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and the pro se brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel’s brief and the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
The judgment is affirmed.
March 17, 2005
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice
Before Panel No. 2
Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)